G.R. No. 193237 & G.R. No. 193536; October 9, 2012
DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO J. CARDINO, Respondents. AGAPITO J. CARDINO, Petitioner, vs. DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR., and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito J. Cardino were candidates for Mayor of Dapitan City in the May 2010 elections. Cardino filed a petition to cancel Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging false material representation regarding his eligibility. Cardino asserted Jalosjos was convicted of robbery and sentenced to prisión mayor but had not served his sentence. Jalosjos admitted the conviction but claimed he had been granted probation and had complied with its terms, citing a 2004 RTC Order and a prior COMELEC case dismissal.
The COMELEC found that Jalosjos’ probation was lawfully revoked by the RTC in 1987. A 2003 Certification of probation compliance, issued by Parole and Probation Administrator Gregorio Bacolod, was later established by the Sandiganbayan to be falsified, leading to Bacolod’s conviction. The COMELEC concluded this fraudulent certification was the sole basis for the 2004 RTC Order and the prior COMELEC dismissal, rendering them void. Consequently, Jalosjos had not served his sentence.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether Jalosjos committed material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy regarding his eligibility for public office.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s resolutions, ruling that Jalosjos indeed made a false material representation. The legal logic centered on the effect of his unserved criminal sentence. Jalosjos was convicted by final judgment for a crime punishable by prisión mayor. Under Article 42 of the Revised Penal Code, this penalty carries the accessory penalty of temporary absolute disqualification, which deprives the offender of the right to hold any public office during the term of the sentence. Since his probation was validly revoked and the subsequent order declaring compliance was based on a falsified document, Jalosjos had not served his sentence. Therefore, the accessory penalty of disqualification was still in effect at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. His sworn declaration of eligibility was thus a material falsehood, warranting the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy under Section 78. The Court emphasized that a void declaration of probation compliance could not restore a right lost by a final judgment.